Damn Google voice recognition!
Simplest explanation I quickly found:
http://election.princeton.edu/2016/07/26/differences-between-models/
Thanks!
Sorry, but this is not at all accurate – polls have swung significantly after labor day in several races since the 1990s. The 2000 race between Gore and Bush was an example. Gore led that race at Labor Day – and lost. The 2008 race was close until the financial crisis, but wasn’t decided until October. Romney closed the gap to pull nearly even (and ahead in some polls) after the first debate before losing after the infamous 47% tape and Obama sealed it with Hurricane Sandy’s response. This is not to say Trump is going to win but polls rise and fall not because they are produced by a random integer generator - they are influenced by real events and voters perceptions of how candidates respond in real time. Trump is losing but he’s pulling to within striking distance.
There is a danger in using past precedents to gauge the current race. The fact is that Trump has recovered from scandals and poll deficits that would have finished off almost any other candidate – Clinton included – early in the race. Clinton herself has a bit of Teflon but the standard to which she is held is higher than Trump, mainly because they are targeting different kinds of voters. The conventional wisdom is that Trump doesn’t have enough of the kinds of voters he is targeting. I’m not so convinced of that.
Trump represents a myth that much of white Christian America wants to believe in, a mythical time that was somehow simpler and worry-free.
And Trump’s response is, who the hell reads newspapers anymore anyway?
Trump won’t have to win the majority; he’ll simply need to win a plurality. And he’ll just have to prevent Hillary from winning via the electoral college.
This is not a race between Hillary and Donald. It also includes Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in several states. You do remember a guy named Ralph Nader and how a supposedly sophomoric candidate somehow defeated a boring political wonk with close ties to Bill Clinton, right?
Hillary Clinton is less liked than Gore – like a LOT less. She is not going to get as many minority voters to actually show up at the polls as Obama.
This race is not over at all, and the polls are moving in Trump’s favor.
And yet, despite all of those offensive comments, he is closing ground on Hillary Clinton. How does a candidate fall behind in the post-convention polls by nearly 10 points and pull nearly even within the span of a month – TWICE?!
Maybe it’s not Donald Trump who should be worried.
Gore did not lose.
Well, speaking of that electoral college and moving in Trump’s favor…
And while Trump is within striking distance, the distance looks farther when one looks back to states that were supposed to be “already in the bag”
By cable news pounding on nonsense like emails and the Clinton Foundation to keep it from becoming a likely landslide, killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
Yeah, well tell that to the people of Iraq.
Voters. Highly likely voters.
Old people. Voters.
Readers. Voters.
What do I care about Trump’s response to it anyway? He’s only going to get, max, 40% of the people with it. But he lost some in Dallas today, that is for sure.
Thousand cuts.
He in fact did not “close ground” or “pull nearly even”. He stayed stuck below 40% like he always has. It is Hillary who has risen and then given some of her points back to undecided. It is my belief that Trump will never actually gain any ground. The unenthusiastic Hillary voters say they are undecided but after the election people will say something happened to cause them to surge toward her right at the end. That will be incorrect but it will be impossible to disprove.
BTW, Obama would have won those elections even without the financial crisis or the Sarah Palin pick or the 47% comments. That’s just not a very exciting story for the media to tell. “Early Frontrunner Maintains Consistent Lead, Wins Comfortably.” Yawn.
Hillary winning Texas is not going to happen, and the Post is really embarrassing itself by publishing anything remotely suggesting that she could. Trump is definitely going to make some red states more interesting than they would be with a more mainstream candidate, but Arizona, Texas, and Georgia are going to vote against Hillary, even if they don’t necessarily want to vote for Trump.
A number of people have rightly noted when you have a pollling average of 3.5%, some polls are going to be at 8%, others will be negative 1%. We have seen both polls over the past three days.
But it’s more fun to bed wet, isn’t it?
Sorry, this is all wild wide-eyed worried thinking. Trump is not going to win enough swing states to overcome his baked in defecit. There is some danger in assuming the past will repeat itself but you need to bring more to the table than what you have to refute it. Using Gore as an example shows the weakness of your argument.
I think the Washington Post can worry about their own reputation, thank you very much. But they appreciate your concern.
As a person who actually lives in Texas, I can tell you that Donald Trump is not as popular here as you believe he is. There are more Hillary signs and stickers than there are Trump signs. Johnson has the support of a lot of local Republicans who prefer smaller government but socially liberal theories.
Trump has his support, no doubt, and is very likely going to win the state, but I am saying this based upon Texas’s history, not because I’m seeing impervious-level support
As reported that is indeed unlikely, but you are falling now for the killing the messenger maneuver. As with polls that have been skewed in favor of the Republicans one has to look at the trend, so we will have to wait and check for more polls to see if there is something there, in the meantime just as it is not good to depend on only one poll it is also not a good idea to dismiss it with very little reason.
Likely, but as noted before, as for now and AFAIK Trump has less chances to win in the general election than Clinton has to win those red states.
And asahi, if you’re so damn confident that Trump is taking Georgia, you shouldn’t be quaking in your boots about Clinton losing the states she’s +4 in
LOL! And you know this how? But even if we accept that argument, isn’t a third (and a fourth) party a problem for Hillary? Isn’t that how Al Gore lost in 2000?
You can believe what you want. Hillary Clinton is the most unpopular “leading” candidate of all time and she’s running against an equally unpopular candidate, but one who’s also a cult candidate.
Again, go to Wikipedia and look up Bush - Gore 2000.